This is my current set up:
8.00 GB ram
SSD Smasung 840 120gb (catalog is here)
HD WD Green 1TB (I place the cache on here)
It becomes especially bad when I place some photos/move a some around.
Thank you for your help
I would, as a general note, upgrade your OS SSD to a 240 GB type.
I have my Windows 10 system, cache and PSE catalog (47000 images) on a 480GB SSD and enjoy blazing speed and lightning fast responsiveness. I also have 16GB RAM.
I agree with Jack a 128GB SSD is hardly large enough to run your programs, then adding you photo to this your memory stacks are gasping for air..
I run a 480GB SSD with 32GB of ram with an I7 chip on windows 7 and even that is not fast enough for me and am looking to upgrade.
However, I have almost 500,000 photos of very high resolution.
The reality is if you keep adding photos you will find the limits of your computer.
For the average person 26,000 is a lot of photos, obviously depending on whether they are high res JPG or raw files all of which are factors to consider when setting up your computer
Most DSLRs today churn out 11-12MB jpg files and 24-32MB Raw files
So I currently have 36 GB free on the SSD, keeping it as free as possible. Catalog is currently 1.5GB.
Will it be better to just get a big 500GB SSD or maybe if I just buy another 120/250GB could I use it alongside the old one somehow (to save a little bit of money)?
I will look to upgrade the Ram also - is there an easy way to test how much is being used in task manager?
It is definitely when I change a lot of location data that it really starts to slow.
Thanks again for the responses.
Your question made me chose the Places tab and behold, it became incredibly slow (having at least 30.000 images with GPS data) until all the Places icons were displayed on the Google map.
It seems there is not much you can do about this as an enormous amount of data has to be read, transferred and processed and shown on the map. Even a fast I7 CPU (which I have....) and a powerful graphics card (which I have....) cannot do this fast enough to enjoy some responsiveness.
I do not know if the GPS data is part of the PSE database inside the catalog. If it isn't then for each image the data has to be fetched from the file itself on the HDD and that takes time!!! Even if the GPS data is part of the catalog SQL database, the amount is enormous and the PSE needs to access, read, process and display it.
When the Metadata of the Information panel is chosen, the same slugginess can be observed as choosing the Places option. It takes some time until the slugginess is gone and then displaying Metadata becomes fast, albeit with high CPU and Memory usage.
Just displaying the place-icons on my system on the map of a certain area takes a long time and I noticed that the CPU and Memory requirements jumped up: CPU up to 96% and Memory to 90%. This means that even the most powerful processor and a generous amount of RAM does not solve the slowness when Places is chosen.
I come to the conclusion that the PSE Places for thousands of images is just a slow process that cannot easily be improved.
Like to hear from others if they have a different experience using the Places option.
My original gut was that the WD green struggled to write new info to the files and read the location information on the files at the same time. However, I have gone with my gut before and been completely wrong!
Thanks for the continued input.
I don't have an SSD and only an I3 processor with 8 GB RAM. I have absolutely no complaints about speed, even with 32 MB raw files. The key is that I don't use people recognition.
I do use face recognition and but that only runs when I first add photos to elements. Could it still be an issue after it has finished?
Ah, why are these things never easy....!
I use Face Recognition extensively and apart from a big Breeze folder inside the catalog folder no responsiveness problems encountered.
Hope this helps.